Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

It's not a quibble. You need to count the suicides in order to make your point. Countries manage to have suicide rates, without guns, far higher than the US. That is an indisputable fact. There are many methods of suicide besides guns. I don't see why suicide should count as a homicide.

They don't. They count as death by gunshot.

More Americans have died from a gunshot since 1968 than from every war in our nation's history, all the way back to the Revolution. Including the Civil War and WW2. This is an indisputable fact.

****'s sake. Have you been paying attention to the economy lately? The fact we've been sending our young folks to war for the past decade, some for years? People have had plenty of bad days. There is no sudden spate of suicides.

How hard is it to jump off a cliff? Tie a rope around a neck? Jump in front of a train? The way you guys talk sometimes it's like the gun possesses its owner and talks a person into suicide--like it's some kind of magical mystery suicide enabler. I had two buddies commit suicide, both by CO poisoning. Wasn't hard at all, turn on the car and go to sleep.

Why is gunshot the preferred method of suicide, as opposed to anything else, including CO poisoning? I have a buddy who shot himself, by the way, since anecdotes are the new data.

Is it just willful ignorance on the part of the antis? Suicide is a cultural issue, when have I ever stated otherwise? I have posted many times the stats showing suicide is higher in countries with strict gun laws. As you so helpfully pointed out, suicide is also lower in some countries with stricter gun laws. Maybe, just maybe, it's because there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of suicides.

In 2008, there was a marked increase in suicide. Firearms, as the method, went down, while poisoning and hanging went up. It is truly a foolish argument to think we will "save" any suicidal folks by banning guns, and I'm not sure why the gun grabbers can't see this. There are many methods to kill yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods

Shriek…squawk…rant…and rave ! Another steaming pile of offal without a shred of substantiating evidence to support it.

I have highlighted the useful parts. I’m assuming I don’t need to review the previous 900 pages of this thread to conclude that your position has remained consistently idiotic. Might I ask if you have ever taken the trouble to look for…or provide, actual evidence to support your absurd assertions? …because if you had…you would quickly discover just how absurd they are (and you might have abandoned them long ago rather than risk what is now about to occur).

I’ll save you the trouble.

Ever heard of the field of Epidemiology? For the intellectually challenged….it is the study (or the science of the study) of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations. Surprise surprise...there are actually people whose job it is to rationally study these issues...as opposed to screaming 'I'm right...you're wrong' ad infinitum and concluding that this qualifies as a reasoned position.

The American association of Epidemiology publishes a bimonthly journal. In it you can find various studies that explore the very issue that is being discussed here. Below I’ve presented some of their conclusions:
The presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold (increase in the) risk of suicide.

The presence of a gun in the home was associated with an almost threefold (increase in the) risk of homicide.

A history of family handgun purchase was associated with an elevated risk of both homicide and suicide.
Males with firearms in the home were at a significantly greater risk of suicide than males without guns in the home.

For persons living with others at the time of death, there was a significant association between the presence of a firearm in the home and risk of a firearm homicide among those aged 35 years or older.

Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death.

The presence of a gun in the home increases the chance that a homicide or suicide in the home will be committed with a firearm rather than by using other means.

Victims of suicide living in homes with guns were more than 30 times more likely to have died from a firearm-related suicide than from one committed with a different method.

Guns are highly lethal, require little preparation, and may be chosen over less lethal methods to commit suicide, particularly when the suicide is impulsive. Suicidal persons may also be more likely to acquire a gun to commit suicide and, given the lethality of the weapon, are more likely to complete suicide.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Yes, because you cannot conclusively PROVE that they wouldn't have chosen another method.

To do so would require you to be a psychic.

Sure. Go ahead and survey 1,000, from many different states, put it into a spreadsheet or whatever you'd like, and we'll take a look.

You make the claim, you back it up.

Shall I conclude that the quotes I’ve included above provide sufficient evidence to undermine your position…or do I actually need to go ahead and contact counselors and get them to say exactly the same things?

I'm thinkin we can finally lay to rest this retarded notion that there is no connection between guns and suicides.

I’m getting the distinct impression that the pro-gun position often amounts to no more than a case of “…if I repeat my dumb position often enough…I will eventually believe that it’s not dumb…!”

Shriek…squawk…rant…and rave ! Another steaming pile of offal without a shred of substantiating evidence to support it.

I have highlighted the useful parts. I’m assuming I don’t need to review the previous 900 pages of this thread to conclude that your position has remained consistently idiotic. Might I ask if you have ever taken the trouble to look for…or provide, actual evidence to support your absurd assertions? …because if you had…you would quickly discover just how absurd they are (and you might have abandoned them long ago rather than risk what is now about to occur).

I’ll save you the trouble.

Ever heard of the field of Epidemiology? For the intellectually challenged….it is the study (or the science of the study) of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations. Surprise surprise...there are actually people whose job it is to rationally study these issues...as opposed to screaming 'I'm right...you're wrong' ad infinitum and concluding that this qualifies as a reasoned position.

The American association of Epidemiology publishes a bimonthly journal. In it you can find various studies that explore the very issue that is being discussed here. Below I’ve presented some of their conclusions:
The presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold (increase in the) risk of suicide.

The presence of a gun in the home was associated with an almost threefold (increase in the) risk of homicide.

A history of family handgun purchase was associated with an elevated risk of both homicide and suicide.
Males with firearms in the home were at a significantly greater risk of suicide than males without guns in the home.

For persons living with others at the time of death, there was a significant association between the presence of a firearm in the home and risk of a firearm homicide among those aged 35 years or older.

Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death.

The presence of a gun in the home increases the chance that a homicide or suicide in the home will be committed with a firearm rather than by using other means.

Victims of suicide living in homes with guns were more than 30 times more likely to have died from a firearm-related suicide than from one committed with a different method.

Guns are highly lethal, require little preparation, and may be chosen over less lethal methods to commit suicide, particularly when the suicide is impulsive. Suicidal persons may also be more likely to acquire a gun to commit suicide and, given the lethality of the weapon, are more likely to complete suicide.

Shall I conclude that the quotes I’ve included above provide sufficient evidence to undermine your position…or do I actually need to go ahead and contact counselors and get them to say exactly the same things?

I'm thinkin we can finally lay to rest this retarded notion that there is no connection between guns and suicides.

I’m getting the distinct impression that the pro-gun position often amounts to no more than a case of “…if I repeat my dumb position often enough…I will eventually believe that it’s not dumb…!”

Now we need an analysis of Japan's even higher suicide rate without access to guns.

Common methods of suicide are jumping in front of trains, leaping off high places, hanging, or overdosing on medication.[1] Rail companies will charge the families of those who commit suicide a fee depending on the severity of disrupted traffic.[17]

A newer method, gaining in popularity partly due to publicity from Internet suicide websites,[2] is to use household products to make the poisonous gas hydrogen sulfide. In 2007, only 29 suicides used this gas, but in a span from January to September 2008, 867 suicides resulted from gas poisoning.[18] This method is particularly problematic, as there is high risk of hurting others in the process. After a man who attempted suicide in 2008 by swallowing pesticides was hospitalized, 50 people in the hospital were sickened by the toxic fumes.[19]

__________________"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Stay well back: I'm allergic to Stupid.

So men (who have guns) are more successful at killing themselves than women (who don't have guns), even though women attempt it more often?

Yes.

It could also reflect that more males are intent on completing the act.

I know first hand of failed attempts by females using medication or suffication where firearms were available in the house - it's been explained to me that it may be a gender issue of not wanting to destroy their face with a gunshot.

If it's any consolation, I know of unsuccessful attempts with firearms as well.

It's a staggering statistic and I completely understand why you want to pretend it's a lie.

I will probably regret engaging in this debate, because i'm agnostic on the issue of gun laws and live within a country where they are pretty strict compared to the US, but reading the last points of discussion, this questioned me.

Is it really a "staggering statistic" that more people died of a gunshot since 1968 in the USA than in all the wars fought by this country since its birth?

I can provide the numbers if you want (I spare you the details) but in France, approx. 5x more people per year died by gunfire (all causes, suicide is the overwhelming majority of them) than soldiers in all official military operations since 1963.

I do not want to sound insensitive, but going by the politifact link you provided, my first tought when looking at their recap of US deaths in wars was "well it is pretty low". 1,171,177 deaths, if accurate, is equal or smaller than French military casualties for the sole WW1 (1.2 to 1.3m / French colonial soldiers are estimated at 60-80k casualties in this, if Wiki sources are to be trusted.). And let's not even talk of the infamous meat grinders, like the Soviet one in WWII.

I don't think the reasons why it is so are really important to this debate, but the fact remains that, once again, the US mostly got it light -and this is something to be thankful for- on a whole (and yes, despite being overactive in foreign engagements since at the very least WWII: the fact is that for the 40 last years, the "Western powers" have been admirable in limiting their soldiers casualties to pretty much negligible levels in the grand scheme of things).

So for one I'm not sure the warcount is that significant in absolute terms.

Even without that remark, I'm not sure to see how meaningful the comparison really is. Despite "evening" 44 years of gunfire deaths to the whole military history of the USA, aren't you comparing two things that have nothing in common size-wise?

The US has 2m+ deaths per year (if I read stats rights) for a 200m+ population since 1968. Facing that, military personnel never amounted to more than 9% of the population (at the very most, and at a focal point in time), so my first impression would be that the number of US citizens engaged in wars would actually represent a much smaller sample even on that longer period*, that would have a hard time -despite the increased death rate we could suppose- sizing up to general statistics in absolute numbers.

To sum it up: seems a lot like apples to oranges.

Am I missing something there?

* Considering the rather restrictive list, which seems to include mostly official wars, i'm not even sure the total number of years it covers would be that long.

__________________"The idea of justice is not a result of the social pact, as some pretended ; on the contrary, it is the very foundation of society" Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, Essay on diplomacy

One problem with this hypothesis, Canada has less access to firearms ownership, yet their suicide rate is roughly the same as America's. Why is this?

Firearms are in roughly the same percentage of Canadian households as US households. The types of firearms are different, few Canadian households have handguns. But that doesn't really matter. Suicide risk goes up with firearms ownership regardless of type.

NWO Sentryman posed a very good question. I'm with AlBell and anxiously awaiting your analysis. Seeing how you are so much more brilliant than me it will probably blow my *********** mind.

My analysis???? What the hell has my analysis (or Japan, or Canada) got to do with anything (I'm not an anthropologist, sociologist, criminologist, psychologist...or even an epidemiologist)??? The only reason you “ await my analysis “ is because…to use a popular metaphor…” the emperor suddenly has no clothes.”

If you insist on an analysis...:

This is about the U S A.

Those studies are about the U S A.

Those conclusions are about the U S A.

They establish the all-but definitive position that gun availability contributes significantly to the suicide rate…

…in the U S A.

Thus…constantly insisting that this is not the case (as you and many others have done)…

…IS WRONG!

Reminder: Denial is not a river in Egypt.

As for being ‘more brilliant’ than anyone…there are many who, understandably, have serious doubts about my abilities. When it comes to this particular issue however…all you had to do was ask a few simple questions…like…’ have any studies been done connecting firearms and suicide statistics (a no-brainer if ever there was one)…and who might have done them…and where could I find the results?’ Instead…you, and most of the pro-gunners here, made up your minds based on nothing but bias and trotted out endless absurdities to convince yourselves that you are right.

The USA is pretty average for suicides. Some countries have higher rates (France, Japan), some countries have lower rates (Netherlands, Pakistan*).

What the US has, is an easy/popular method for suicidal people to kill themselves... however, it does not seem to make the total number of suicides out of line with other first world countries.

* Unclear if they included suicide bombers in their low suicide rate data.

The presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold (increase in the) risk of suicide.

I'm guessing the epidemiologists who came to that conclusion must actually have meant to say something else. Or maybe they're all just stupid.

What kind of profession is that anyway??? Truck driver, airline pilot, auto mechanic...now that's a real job. Epidemiology sounds like a disease. Doubtless anyone with an elementary school education would be able to out-think one of these folks with multiple years of medical, statistical, and psychological experience. Someone like you obviously. Epidemiologists are all liberals anyway. Why don't we just chuck all those studies since you've established that their conclusions are all wrong (a wiki grad are we?).

Now, about (hard to get exact data) 40% of household have a firearm. For your assertion that "The presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold (increase in the) risk of suicide" that base US suicide rate (absent firearms) would have to be roughly equal to 4.6 per 100,000 *. That seems pretty low compared to our "peer group". I mean, It's possible, because the USA is awesome compared to France etc (perhaps because we have more cool guns) but it seems like the claim figure of 5-fold increases might just be bull***, y'know, just using occams razor and all.

Now, about (hard to get exact data) 40% of household have a firearm. For your assertion that "The presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold (increase in the) risk of suicide" that base US suicide rate (absent firearms) would have to be roughly equal to 4.6 per 100,000 *. That seems pretty low compared to our "peer group". I mean, It's possible, because the USA is awesome compared to France etc (perhaps because we have more cool guns) but it seems like the claim figure of 5-fold increases might just be bull***, y'know, just using occams razor and all.

Now, about (hard to get exact data) 40% of household have a firearm. For your assertion that "The presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold (increase in the) risk of suicide" that base US suicide rate (absent firearms) would have to be roughly equal to 4.6 per 100,000 *. That seems pretty low compared to our "peer group". I mean, It's possible, because the USA is awesome compared to France etc (perhaps because we have more cool guns) but it seems like the claim figure of 5-fold increases might just be bull***, y'know, just using occams razor and all.

As far as suicide, it seems a distractor in a conversation on gun control.

A firearm is an effective tool that can be used for many things, good or ill.

It's certainly an effective, though somewhat messy, means of ending one's life. It's not, BTW, the method I would choose, and I don't think in my case having a gun handy makes me personally any more likely to off myself. But that's an anecdote and I'll yield to whatever statistics are out there.

Is getting repititious, but I'll say it again: guns are prevalent in many, many households across great red swatches of this country. Deer rifles, shotguns, military keepsakes and replicas, handguns, you name it. A tiny, tiny, nearly infinitesimal number of these guns ever get used in crimes.

I know the Australian PM made a case for taking nearly all weapons out of the hands of nearly all citizens, and I read it with interest. He clearly feels the end has justified the means, and I assume he's a good man with pure interests. But the end result is large numbers of law abiding citizens being stripped of a right because of the actions of a very, very few.

Anyway, can we drop the suicide thing as an argument for gun control? It makes about as much sense as banning razor blades or rope or internal combustion engines.

The research in question compared suicide rates of households with and without firearms in the US. Differing rates between nations may be dominated by cultural factors.

Why is this argument OK for anti-gunners and not vice versa?

Yes, this is a dead serious question. I, and others pro-gunners, have been blasted for having an identical argument.

Do one of you AG's have any magical statistics that show if a gun was not present, that a suicide would have been prevented?

Sorry, but having been on scene for a number of different suicides (one just the other night), people who want to go will find a way to go. Just before Christmas, we found a gentleman that choose an OD on painkillers...with three shotguns neatly locked in his gun cabinet. This is one of several, and not some unique, anecdotal situation. Other EMS personal across the country would find identical cases.

I agree with the side that suicides should not be counted when discussing deaths by firearm. Sorry. I don't see that taking the gun away saves that life.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

The presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold (increase in the) risk of suicide.

I'm guessing the epidemiologists who came to that conclusion must actually have meant to say something else. Or maybe they're all just stupid.

What kind of profession is that anyway??? Truck driver, airline pilot, auto mechanic...now that's a real job. Epidemiology sounds like a disease. Doubtless anyone with an elementary school education would be able to out-think one of these folks with multiple years of medical, statistical, and psychological experience. Someone like you obviously. Epidemiologists are all liberals anyway. Why don't we just chuck all those studies since you've established that their conclusions are all wrong (a wiki grad are we?).

Shriek…squawk…rant…and rave ! Another steaming pile of offal without a shred of substantiating evidence to support it.

I have highlighted the useful parts. I’m assuming I don’t need to review the previous 900 pages of this thread to conclude that your position has remained consistently idiotic. Might I ask if you have ever taken the trouble to look for…or provide, actual evidence to support your absurd assertions? …because if you had…you would quickly discover just how absurd they are (and you might have abandoned them long ago rather than risk what is now about to occur).

I’ll save you the trouble.

Ever heard of the field of Epidemiology? For the intellectually challenged….it is the study (or the science of the study) of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations. Surprise surprise...there are actually people whose job it is to rationally study these issues...as opposed to screaming 'I'm right...you're wrong' ad infinitum and concluding that this qualifies as a reasoned position.

The American association of Epidemiology publishes a bimonthly journal. In it you can find various studies that explore the very issue that is being discussed here. Below I’ve presented some of their conclusions:
The presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold (increase in the) risk of suicide.

The presence of a gun in the home was associated with an almost threefold (increase in the) risk of homicide.

A history of family handgun purchase was associated with an elevated risk of both homicide and suicide.
Males with firearms in the home were at a significantly greater risk of suicide than males without guns in the home.

For persons living with others at the time of death, there was a significant association between the presence of a firearm in the home and risk of a firearm homicide among those aged 35 years or older.

Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death.

The presence of a gun in the home increases the chance that a homicide or suicide in the home will be committed with a firearm rather than by using other means.

Victims of suicide living in homes with guns were more than 30 times more likely to have died from a firearm-related suicide than from one committed with a different method.

Guns are highly lethal, require little preparation, and may be chosen over less lethal methods to commit suicide, particularly when the suicide is impulsive. Suicidal persons may also be more likely to acquire a gun to commit suicide and, given the lethality of the weapon, are more likely to complete suicide.

Shall I conclude that the quotes I’ve included above provide sufficient evidence to undermine your position…or do I actually need to go ahead and contact counselors and get them to say exactly the same things?

I'm thinkin we can finally lay to rest this retarded notion that there is no connection between guns and suicides.

I’m getting the distinct impression that the pro-gun position often amounts to no more than a case of “…if I repeat my dumb position often enough…I will eventually believe that it’s not dumb…!”

Citation Required.

Also, fails coorelation != causation. You're saying that they are more likely to have guns without telling me anything else. This is a really really bad way to argue.

I don't know how long these class-action suits are going to take or how far they go. But according to the lawyer that was on the talk radio show this morning, there are a couple major points that may get this new law tossed:

- 5th Amendment violation: This new law specifically states that you must "turn in or sell" your mags that hold more than 10 rounds. Apparently, the government cannot force you sell property without first offering fair market compensation...which basically amounts to seizure.

- The guy wasn't specific, but the requirement of medical health professionals to report people who "may" become violent is against HIPAA regulations. (Which, I'll admit, I was sad to hear...I really think potential violence in mentally-ill patients needs to be a critical address point).

- Lastly, the DC vs. Heller case does not allow for common firearms to be banned. Since the AR-15 platform is so common, NY is allowed to require a license, but cannot outright ban them.

IANAL, so I have no idea of the validity here. But it looks as if NY law-makers didn't even bother doing any research before throwing this thing together.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

I don't know how long these class-action suits are going to take or how far they go. But according to the lawyer that was on the talk radio show this morning, there are a couple major points that may get this new law tossed:

- 5th Amendment violation: This new law specifically states that you must "turn in or sell" your mags that hold more than 10 rounds. Apparently, the government cannot force you sell property without first offering fair market compensation...which basically amounts to seizure.

- The guy wasn't specific, but the requirement of medical health professionals to report people who "may" become violent is against HIPAA regulations. (Which, I'll admit, I was sad to hear...I really think potential violence in mentally-ill patients needs to be a critical address point).

- Lastly, the DC vs. Heller case does not allow for common firearms to be banned. Since the AR-15 platform is so common, NY is allowed to require a license, but cannot outright ban them.

IANAL, so I have no idea of the validity here. But it looks as if NY law-makers didn't even bother doing any research before throwing this thing together.

I disagree. I think it shows that the gun lobby doesn't really believe in any restrictions that could slow gun sales, so they are attacking on every ground, even things they claim to support, like better tracking of the mentally ill. When it comes down to it, they will fight every rational regulation, which will destroy any chance of progress. Ironically, this kind of behavior will likely lead to harsher, more draconian gun laws, since if none of these things are legal under the constitution, that will leave no choice but to amend the constitution. If you cannot ban AR-15s or enforce any ban on any gun that is deemed "common", what's left besides throwing up your hands and accepting gun violence as the price of liberty or abolishing the 2nd amendment?

Conservatives love to say "the constitution is not a suicide pact" and on this issue, they are correct.

I disagree. I think it shows that the gun lobby doesn't really believe in any restrictions that could slow gun sales, so they are attacking on every ground, even things they claim to support, like better tracking of the mentally ill. When it comes down to it, they will fight every rational regulation, which will destroy any chance of progress. Ironically, this kind of behavior will likely lead to harsher, more draconian gun laws, since if none of these things are legal under the constitution, that will leave no choice but to amend the constitution. If you cannot ban AR-15s or enforce any ban on any gun that is deemed "common", what's left besides throwing up your hands and accepting gun violence as the price of liberty or abolishing the 2nd amendment?

Conservatives love to say "the constitution is not a suicide pact" and on this issue, they are correct.

You don't have to "ban" something to get control of it. I've already made some suggestions in #818 that would help more so than any arbitrary restriction they are trying to place on firearms. And none of them violate any Amendment.

I'm all for "shall-issue" permits, extensive criminal/mental background checks, periodic license renewal, and registration for handguns. Heck, I'll even back that idea for firearms designated as the scary "assault weapon".

This is a very, very, very simple premise that AG's can't seem to grasp. You are not going to keep the firearms away from the people who shouldn't have them by restricting purchase to the law abiding.

I still believe my idea of a reward system for reporting illegal guns is a million x's more effective than simply telling legal gun owners to only carry 7-rounds in your mag.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

You don't have to "ban" something to get control of it. I've already made some suggestions in #818 that would help more so than any arbitrary restriction they are trying to place on firearms. And none of them violate any Amendment.

I'm all for "shall-issue" permits, extensive criminal/mental background checks, periodic license renewal, and registration for handguns. Heck, I'll even back that idea for firearms designated as the scary "assault weapon".

This is a very, very, very simple premise that AG's can't seem to grasp. You are not going to keep the firearms away from the people who shouldn't have them by restricting purchase by the law abiding.

I still believe my idea of a reward system for reporting illegal guns is a million x's more effective than simply telling legal gun owners to only carry 7-rounds in your mag.

I think it's a false dichotomy. I like your ideas. I just don't think they are the only ideas. We can do all of them, and each one will do a little bit.

In the case of a Jared Loughner, him stopping to reload allowed him to be stopped. But of course that's not enough. It's just one piece of the puzzle. I also support your ideas and others I've heard, including setting up a licensing scheme, harsh penalties for gun negligence, massive buy back programs (that pay enough to get real guns back) and PSAs designed to reduce the allure of guns. I just think any one of those is enough on its own. It's a complicated problem. Why should the solution be simple?